i assumed (or was taught, i can't actually remember!) as a protestant that judas did not take the Holy Communion, but since becoming orthodox have been told unequivocally by a priest during Bible study that he definitely took it. this seems to be the view of the church fathers and other priests i have met.

may God have mercy on all our churches and may we remember to pray for all our leaders who do a very difficult job.

And unfortunately, many Copts are willing to unequivocally accept anything taught by H.H., no matter how correct or incorrect his views were.

Out my love for HH I am sometimes guilty of this too.. Not that I can think of anything in particular that HH ever taught that was not soundly Orthodox, but I often appeal to HH writings in the same sense of legitimacy and spiritual connection as I do HH predecessors like Saint Athanasius or Saint Cyril. I fully understand that HH doesn't carry the same kind of Ecumenical authority, but I am from the Ethiopian Tewahedo jurisdiction, and for much of our history what Alexandria taught was sort of in the Catholic sense magisterium

For my part, I would also like to see evidence of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III directly teaching against Judas being at the Eucharist, because I also understand the Fathers teach this as soundly Orthodox, indeed, the Holy Communion is entirely what cursed Judas Iscariot in the first place wasn't it?

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Plus, I wouldn't mind if Met. Bishoy held to this view so long as if it were his own personal opinion. But he says in his book, responding to the Da Vinci code, (in a paraphrase) that "the Holy Orthodox Church rejects that Judas partook of the Eucharist." IOW, he is turning is own opinion into Church dogma. Sure, one can indeed say "the Holy Orthodox Church rejects that Judas partook of the Eucharist" so long as "the Holy Orthodox Church" does not refer to the Church of Sts. Cyril, Chrysostom, and Jerome.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 02:45:04 AM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty, in his book "Treasures from the Fathers of the Church: Volume 3", argues that according to an Ancient Alexandrian tradition, Judas left before the administering of the Eucharist. He cites the Apostolic Constitutions, the Scholar Origen, and Pope Shenouda to support this view. And, IIRC, he also make the argument the Lord and His Disciples partook of the Passover. Still though, that contradicts the words of Pope Saint Peter of Alexandria and Saint Hippolytus, who said that they did not partake of the Passover. Fr. Tadros also mentions that the Coptic Synod removed a line from St. John Chrysostom's homily (which is recited during Holy Week) which states that Judas received the Eucharist. What do you all think?

« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 08:34:38 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

This is a question I never considered. I think its ok to explore the possibilities, but caution should be exercised.

The principle here is that a Hierarch of our Church is teaching several beliefs which are contradictory to the teachings of the Fathers and is supposedly (I am not endorsing anything here as absolute fact) harassing Priests and Bishops who are teaching the Orthodox and Patristic view.

I think we need to pray for His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, as he has clearly become quite troublesome in the election process, and has given himself an authority being an infallible interpreter and defender of the Orthodox faith. His method of defining Orthodoxy is proof-texting the Scriptures, as well as seeming to take a semi-magical approach of Apostolic succession. I think His Grace Bishop Serapion as well as His Grace Bishop Youssef takes a more sensible approach, with a certain amount of respect as well as warning. Fr. Athanasius, while I agree with his articles, he seems to have a bit more of a confrontational tone (which I'm not saying is wrong or right, but with someone like His Eminence, who is known to have a high self-ego, you might need to take that sensible approach). For instance, their graces have shown that the diocesan metropolitans who became Popes were very successful, righteous, and holy Metropolitans, who would seem quite qualified on a superficial basis, but when they became Popes, they put the Coptic Church through dark ages. In this, you see that their graces are alluding to His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy as a great and holy bishop with well-to-do intentions, but should reconsider his seeking out the papacy before he spirals downward to a downfall.

With this in mind, I believe we even read St. John Chrysostom's homily quoted earlier here in one of the Good Friday hours in the Coptic Church, where he mentions Judas partaking of the Eucharist in condemnation of himself and without worth, and as a lesson to any of us who do not take the Eucharist seriously by constant repentance and spiritual preparedness, or else we would be like Judas, just as St. Severus teaches us in one of the Coptic Prayers of Reconciliation attributed to him:

Quote

Christ, our God, the fearsome and incomprehensible power of God the Father. O You, Who sit uponthe flaming throne of the Cherubim and are served by the fiery powers and You are a consuming fire, being God.

Because of the ineffable act of coming down and Your love to mankind, you did not burn the deceitful betrayer when he approached You. But You greeted him with a kiss of friendship, drawing him to repentance and the comprehension of his audacity.

Make us also worthy, O our Master, in this fearful hour being in one mind, without anything of a divided heart, and the rest of the evils. That we may greet one another with a holy kiss;

And do not condemn us, if we are not entirely clean - as pleases Your goodness - from the filth of sin and deceit and the remembrance of evil, which brings forth death.

But You, in Your ineffable and undeclarable compassion, knowing the weakness and the drowning of our creation -Wipe out every defilement of our transgressions, that this mystery, which is Your divinity, may not be a judgmentagainst us condemnation.

For even in approaching the Kiss of Peace with our brothers and sisters, we do so in righteousness and not imitate the unrepentant behavior of Judas here as well, so also we learn that we should not go with our hearts unrepentant to the Eucharist, as Judas did as St. John Chrysostom alluded to.

Nevertheless, because this is not a dogmatic issue, I would wish if His Eminence's opinion is his opinion. I would not think it's wrong to believe Judas didn't partake of the Eucharist, but it is wrong to condemn others who don't believe in such non-dogmatic issues. And for this, I hope we pray for him and pray for the Church as well in this pivotal moment in our history.

very well said Mina, I too was taught that he did partake, and the way he partook serves as a warning for all of us,along all the Fathers of the Church, the Ethiopian fathers as well, like St.Abba Giorgis ze gatsicha, have taught that he had partaken of the Eucharist and what the consequence was for him, and warn against even kissing the Gospel, doing the peace greeting,etc... while having an unrepentant heart. however since this is not a matter of Dogma, wish those who say he has not, keep it as their own personal opinion and not get carried away in a manner that ends up harming the Church. Now that is quite a dangerous path to travel for them. may the Lord have mercy on us!

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Fr. Tadros also mentions that the Coptic Synod removed a line from St. Chrysostom's homily (which is recited during Holy Week) which states that Judas received the Eucharist.

When was this done?

I don't know. But I absolutely hate how our Holy Synod thinks that it's OK to delete Liturgical prayers and homilies just because the God-inspired teachings of the Fathers and hymnographers of the Church do not conform to the views of certain Theologically unqualified Hierarchs. I do hope our other Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters (especially the Ethiopians and Eritreans) can lead us back onto the straight path. Their Hierarchs seem a lot more Theologically capable than many of our own Coptic Hierarchs.

BTW, I am not just talking about Judas' participation in the Eucharist. I am also talking about other prayers that have been deleted by the Synod, like the prayers for those in Hades.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2012, 11:20:09 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I don't know. But I absolutely hate how our Holy Synod thinks that it's OK to delete Liturgical prayers and homilies just because the God-inspired teachings of the Fathers and hymnographers of the Church do not conform to the views of certain Theologically unqualified Hierarchs. I do hope our other Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters (especially the Ethiopians and Eritreans) can lead us back onto the straight path. Their Hierarchs seem a lot more Theologically capable than many of our own Coptic Hierarchs.

If true, it's certainly very problematic, since I doubt anyone in the Coptic Holy Synod has the knowledge of Greek and access to manuscripts needed to put together a critical edition of St. John's writings, which would be the only legitimate reason for removing passages from his works.

But it does seem that recently the teaching that the brothers of the Lord were the blood children of Joseph has been changed, since the older Arabic Synaxarium speaks of them in such a way, while the modern English one has removed references and all the Orthodox Churches have considered them always to be children of Joseph.

And the prayers for those in Hades, though very ancient have also been removed recently.

Several years ago I came across a short article in a journal of the Coptic Church where it stated that this Church had decided to remove prayers for those held in hell from its service books, since these prayers “contradict Orthodox teaching”. Puzzled by this article, I decided to ask a representative of the Coptic Church about the reasons for this move. Recently I had the possibility to do so, and a Coptic Metropolitan replied that the decision was made by his Synod because, according their official doctrine, no prayers can help those in hell. I told the metropolitan that in the liturgical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and other local Orthodox Churches there are prayers for those held in hell, and that we believe in their saving power. This surprised the Metropolitan, and he promised to study this question in more detail.

Plus, I have already provided the reference of Fr. Tadros' book. I would be very surprised if either of these two men were wrong concerning this issue. Both Met. Hilarion and Fr. Tadros are among the most preeminent Theologians of their respective Churches.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 11:16:56 AM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

The Tur Abdin Timeline - A timeline of Tur Abdin (Syriac for "the Mountain of the Servants [of God]"), the heartland of the Syriac Orthodox Christians, a hilly region located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates.

I say this with all possible respect to H.H. (of thrice blessed memory), his opinion is not the final authority. What about you, Suryoyutho? What were you taught in the Syriac Orthodox Church?

The only concrete thing I have found thus far on our side is...

Quote

Jesus Christ established the Holy Communion after the Last Supper. During this, the only people that were present were Jesus Himself and His twelve disciples (apostles).

From the St Ignatius Syriac Orthodox Church in Dallas.

I haven't found anything suggesting otherwise.

Logged

The Tur Abdin Timeline - A timeline of Tur Abdin (Syriac for "the Mountain of the Servants [of God]"), the heartland of the Syriac Orthodox Christians, a hilly region located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates.

i would like to see references; otherwise it's just an assuption / misunderstanding that this has taken place.

Apart from the above video which makes it clear,

Quote from: HHPS3 in "So many years with the problems of people." Page 93-94

Question: Did Judas partake of the Holy Communion along with the disciples on Maundy Thursday?.

Answer:The opinion of the fathers of the church is that he attended the Passover but not the Eucharist. This is clear from the saying of the Lord Christ about His betrayer "It is one of the twelve, who dips with Me in the dish." (Mark 14:20). The phrase "dips... in the dish" goes along with the Passover but not partaking from the body and blood of the Lord where He broke the bread and gave them, then tasted from the cup and gave them. (1 Cor. 11:23-25). The Gospel of St. John said "having dipped the bread He gave it to Judas Iscariot... now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him... having received the piece of bread, hethen went out immediately. And it was night. " (John 13:26-30). Clearly, in the Sacrament of Eucharist there is no dipping of bread but this was the Passover.Furthermore, if Judas did partake of the Body and Blood, then he partook it unworthy not discerning the Lord's Body, and partook judgment to himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29). However, the fathers said that he partook of the Passover only; then went to carry out his crime. The Lord gave His covenant only to the eleven disciples.

I must respectfully say that it seems evident that H.H.'s view is that Judas did not take the Eucharist. This also leads me to some questions:

1) H.H. says that the fathers have a consensus, but he does not list one of these fathers. I wonder if H.H. knew about the views of St. John Chrysostom, and if he did, why he ignored them?

2) I think the key question is one about a misunderstanding of synergy. It seems that, within the Coptic church, the sacraments are magical rather than mystical. I have grown men come and ask me how they can be tempted after communion. The idea of synergy is not present in common understanding. That is my problem, as though Judas could not have had the devil enter him after communion.

Would anyone be able to get a clip/writing of Pope Shenouda regarding the sayings by Chrysostom? I know H.H. must have seen them, I only wonder what his reason for dismissing them was. It may be a good one, it may not. I just hope to see how H.H. thought this one through.

Finally, to those asking what difference does it make? I think the difference is in the idea of synergy.

2) I think the key question is one about a misunderstanding of synergy. It seems that, within the Coptic church, the sacraments are magical rather than mystical. I have grown men come and ask me how they can be tempted after communion. The idea of synergy is not present in common understanding. That is my problem, as though Judas could not have had the devil enter him after communion.

Finally, to those asking what difference does it make? I think the difference is in the idea of synergy.

I recommend you revisit the link provided by Suryoyutho. Contrary to your suggestion that His Holiness' position on Judas undermines the doctrine of synergy, Suryoyutho's link offers quite explicit and unequivocal evidence of the centrality of the doctrine of synergy to His Holiness' Eucharistic spirituality.

The remark made by His Holiness in Suryoyutho's link about Judas not partaking in the Eucharist was but incidental to his primary point: that of the eleven disciples who did partake of the Eucharist, only one ended up following Christ to the Cross. In other words, His Holiness' primary point is that those disciples who DID partake of the Eucharist were not thereby magically rendered immune from the denials, fears, disbelief, and doubts that plagued all but one of them immediately after. His Holiness thus takes the disappointing response of the majority of the disciples as an illustration of the general principle that the effectiveness of Eucharistic Communion is dependent on the condition of the communicant's heart—which is, needless to say, dependent on their faith and conduct.

You may also want to consider His Holiness' landmark work, 'Diabolic Wars', where he argues that drawing near to God through prayer and participation in the Eucharist envies the devil in a way that leads him to attack the believer. In one paragraph, His Holiness goes as far as to suggest that on the very same day that one partakes of the Eucharist one could very well be tempted to such a point that they fall into sin and perhaps even despair.

The suggestion, then, that His Holiness' position on Judas is connected to a misunderstanding of the Eucharist, is:

(a) directly undermined by His Holiness' express teachings on the Eucharist and the implications of receiving the Eucharist;

and

(b) irrational and artificial.

It is irrational because such a misunderstanding of the Eucharist as you suggest simply does not follow from a denial of Judas' participation in the Eucharist, either by way of logical necessity or probability, or by way of reasonable inference.

It is artificial in that it is not grounded in or relevant to the reasoning at the basis of such a denial—His Holiness has never said or suggested that had Judas communed he would've been "magically" cured and not betrayed Christ; and his remarks (as accounted for above) regarding the rest of the disciples who did commune directly oppose such a line of reasoning.

It is also artificial in the sense that no one actually draws such a connection. Even granting the fact that certain lay persons misunderstand the Eucharist in the way you suggest (I have no reason not to believe you), I can see no good reason why one would infer that such a misunderstanding has anything to do with the idea that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist in light of everything I've noted above. Seems to me like a mere matter of lay ignorance.

For the record, I'm personally of the view that Judas did in fact partake of the Eucharist, and I think the implications that follow from this position relate to matters of essential doctrine and spirituality.

With that said, whilst I certainly think it warranted that the position that Judas partook of the Eucharist should gain ascendency over the contrary position promoted by His Holiness, I find it both unreasonable and unfair that anyone would discuss this matter in a way that directly or indirectly questions the Orthodoxy of the saintly Patriarch.

The idea that Judas did in fact partake of the Eucharist is but a non-essential matter of fact which the Fathers appealed to as a framework within which to pastorally discuss an essential matter of spirituality—namely, the dire consequences that follow from unworthily partaking of the Eucharist. Such an essential matter of spirituality is, however, not logically contingent on the idea that Judas partook of the Eucharist; and so His Holiness is able to uphold such an essential matter of spirituality on independent grounds--in so doing, he remains perfectly in line with the Fathers as far as the essential matters are concerned.

In fact, His Holiness is also essentially in line with the Fathers with respect to the underlying rationale of his position that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist. That rationale is, quite simply, that those who approach the Eucharist unworthily (which is of course to be understood in a peculiar sense since we are all generally unworthy) are to be denied communion. We don't know why in Judas' case he was permitted by the Lord to commune unworthily (it does not seem that the Fathers address that question—apart from the brief remark by St Cyril that it was in the fulfillment of prophecy), but we do know that the Lord's instruction to His Church is that priests are to deny communion to those who they know approach unworthily.

I recall reading some time ago a seventh century Coptic hagiography in the Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium series where the Eucharistic morsels would visibly show repulsion to those who approached unworthily, thereby indicating to the officiating priest (who in this case was a saintly desert father) that he should not permit them to commune. Consider also the fact that a person's confession father will deny that person the opportunity to commune for some time if they've committed a sin that renders them unworthy to commune according to the canons of the Church.

His Holiness was an Orthodox Father of our times and he will be referred to and quoted as such by generations that follow. As with all Holy Fathers, he was not infallible. I believe he erred on the question of whether or not Judas participated in the Eucharist; but, with that said, his error relates to a non-essential matter of fact and is in all probability explained simply by an insufficient availability of patristic resources which lead him to believe that the position that Judas partook of the Eucharist was the minority position. Nothing His Holiness said or wrote undermines any essential matter of spirituality relevant to the subject under discussion; and in fact there is evidence of his direct support of such.

« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 04:10:50 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

2) I think the key question is one about a misunderstanding of synergy. It seems that, within the Coptic church, the sacraments are magical rather than mystical. I have grown men come and ask me how they can be tempted after communion. The idea of synergy is not present in common understanding. That is my problem, as though Judas could not have had the devil enter him after communion.

Try reading what I wrote. There is nothing in between lines. You place things there. Synergy is indeed a thought far removed from the common understanding of the Coptic community. On a practical level, I have had many say to me that you cannot be tempted in liturgy because God is present on the Altar. I am not saying his H.H. does not understand, rather that this idea that Judas did not take communion fuels this idea a little more. And diabolic wars is one of my favourite books. You can begin a quote, and I will finish it. So I know that H.H. understands synergy.

Quote

The suggestion, then, that His Holiness' position on Judas is connected to a misunderstanding of the Eucharist,

I did not imply it. You inferred it. I said that there is a common misconception of the Eucharist, and that it is certainly fueled by this idea. Again nothing about the understanding of H.H. There is no need for you to write me an essay for something I already knew. That is called being a bully.

Like every other Copt I have dealt with when speaking regarding a position H.H. held, it becomes confrontational. Not once did I imply that H.H. was not Orthodox in his understanding (since I know that indeed most Alexandrine fathers held the same idea) but my points were simple. You are reading into them too much. I claimed the following:

1) There is a common misunderstanding of synergy. 2)I said that I would like to know HHPS3's reason for dismissing the quote of Chrysostom. I even said he may be right, he may be wrong (I leave it open, since I don't know). 3) I asked for a clarification of HHPS3's position so that I can understand how he thought it through. When some fathers are consulted, and other fathers rejected, there must be a reason, and I feel that we are just scratching the surface until we can understand HHPS3's method of patrological interpretations.

So I don't get why you are so offended. I did not mean to offend. It seems that there is just some aroma of offense that goes around with me. I assure you though, I am asking for nothing more than a clarification of HHPS3's position, and speaking against the common understanding (in my original post, this is exactly what I said) that undermines synergy. Thats all there was.

All your talk about HHPS3 being a theologian and all that good stuff, is fine. but it is irrelevant to me. I am asking for answers to a specific question about a view which a specific person held. Not asking for proof that he was a good theologian. You said it yourself, all people make mistakes. He made mistakes, I make (many) mistakes. But knowledge comes from pressing for understanding. Until this post, no-one has justified (explained) why H.H. has ignored the writings that indicate the other view, unequivocally saying that Judas did not commune. It would seem to me that since the fathers differ, it should be left an open question. However, HHPS3's strong stance that he did not commune indicates to me that there may be something else that we are not considering.

Since this is a forum, I asked for the explanation. Instead, I get a defense of H.H. as though I was bringing out the big guns to attack him.

If my original post offended you EA, then I throw myself before you asking for your forgiveness, I did not mean to offend. To all those who felt offense from me, forgive me, and pray for me. I am a fool,

It is also artificial in the sense that no one actually draws such a connection. Even granting the fact that certain lay persons misunderstand the Eucharist in the way you suggest (I have no reason not to believe you), I can see no good reason why one would infer that such a misunderstanding has anything to do with the idea that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist in light of everything I've noted above. Seems to me like a mere matter of lay ignorance.

I was speaking to my friend the other day, and I told him I was having a hard time with some sins. He told me communion gives you respite from sins, because you cannot sin. I told him, "What about Judas?" to which he replies, "Stop reading other material. Pope Shenouda indicates clearly that Judas did not take communion."

That is my problem. In such a minute issue as this, there is no problem with H.H. holding a view I disagree with. I just want to understand. Please, help me understand. I am a fool,

What do you all think of the fact that the Apostolic Constitutions say that Judas was not present during Communion?

"And when He had delivered to us the representative mysteries of His precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us, He went out to the Mount of Olives, near the brook Cedron, where there was a garden"

RO, it's beyond me how you could read my first post as being "confrontational" or an attempt to "bully" you. It's also beyond me why you think I was offended by anything you said or why you feel the need to apologise to me. Take it easy brother; there's no need to be so dramatic.

Quote

My post was regarding common understanding, not that of H.H.

Your post was a response to a discussion on the position of His Holiness on Judas' participation in the Eucharist. Your post in fact begins with a quotation of His Holiness and proceeds from there. Whether you intended it or not, your post seemed to imply that by advocating the position that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist, His Holiness was in some sense responsible (even innocuously) for certain persons holding to false Eucharistic spirituality.

In response, I simply sought to introduce additional material expounding His Holiness' understanding of the Last Supper and Eucharistic spirituality in order to make clear that his position that Judas did not partake in the Eucharist, understood in its proper context, cannot possibly be faulted for the Eucharistic misunderstanding you raised; neither as a matter of logic (given that such an understanding does not rationally follow from such a position) nor as a matter of substance (given His Holiness' express and explicit teachings on the Eucharist).

As to the idea that this misunderstanding of the Eucharist is "common": I don't know you, or the people you know, so I am in no position to evaluate your testimony as to your personal experience. What I can say is that in my personal experience, not only is such a misunderstanding not common, it is in fact non-existent.

Quote

this idea that Judas did not take communion fuels this idea a little more.

As I think I sufficiently demonstrated in my previous post: such a misunderstanding of the Eucharist as you suggest simply does not follow from a denial of Judas' participation in the Eucharist; neither by way of logical necessity or probability, nor by way of reasonable inference, nor by way of a proper understanding of that denial in context.

It follows then, that if we were to take for granted your assertion that certain people in fact base such a misunderstanding of the Eucharist on the position that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist, that the fault lies with them, not with that position nor with those who hold that position.

The position that Judas DID partake of the Eucharist can similarly be argued to potentially give rise to false Eucharistic praxis: that since Judas was not barred from communing on the day he betrayed Christ, then anyone should always have access to the mysteries no matter their spiritual condition. I think St John Chrysostom was aware of that danger; which is why, in the very same homily that he suggests that Judas received communion, he proceeds with a rather lengthy and emphatic warning to priests that they "let no Judas receive".

Simply, and in general, it is not an argument against a position to suggest that in theory it might possibly lead to a false inference being made by others or that certain persons have in fact drawn such a false inference, particularly when, a) such an inference does not logically or reasonably follow, and, b) those who advocate that position do so in a context that is directly at odds with such an inference.

Quote

I said that I would like to know HHPS3's reason for dismissing the quote of Chrysostom.

The only evidence we have regarding the basis of His Holiness' position are his words which you yourself quoted; a general reference to the "opinions of the Church Fathers".

As has been noted in this thread, the idea that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist is not completely without patristic/historical basis. The idea is advocated in the Apostolic Constitutions—in an account that is in fact presumed to be a firsthand account of St John the Beloved that was written by one of St Paul’s associates—a certain Clement whom St Paul mentions in Phil. 4:3. It is also advocated by St Hilary of Poitiers and Origen. Interestingly, the seventh century Eastern Orthodox Father, St Maximus the Confessor, and a later 13th century Byzantine theologian and historian, both support a reading of St Dionysius the Areopagite to the effect that St Dionysius was also of the opinion that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist. Two medieval Latin patristic commentators also support such a reading of St Dionysius. There is some confusion surrounding St Augustine's position on the matter since there appears to be evidence from his writings supporting both positions.

We know that the Apostolic Constitutions exists in Arabic. We also know that His Holiness has quoted St Hilary of Poitiers and Origen in some of his works, so he was perhaps aware of their position also. I certainly don't think he had any idea about St Dionysius. If he was aware of St John Chrysostom's position he could very well have thought that position to be the minority patristic position on the basis of the resources available to him.

Although the number of sources in support of His Holiness' position were few, His Holiness might very well have thought that the Scriptural text itself lends credence to the position found in those sources. It was within his clerical authority to consider and deal with the Scriptural text in such a way, and indeed, such an approach to discerning truth is in line with that of the Fathers who tended to arrive at positions on certain doctrinal and spiritual matters by considering the implications of the Scriptural text.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 01:28:19 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

I thought it might be helpful if I add some comments about some general concerns that prompted me to respond to this thread in the first place, which I hope might extinguish any remaining concerns you might have of my being offended by, or critical of you.

I admire your zeal to explore and be faithful to the teachings of the Holy Fathers. As those on this forum who have known me long enough know, I have an ardent interest in seeing our Church invest more time and energy in studying and living her patristic heritage and in reviving elements of that heritage which have been, in one sense or another, either dormant, "lost in translation", or, worse yet, perhaps even undermined.

With that said, I am wary of those with a similar interest who would unwittingly use the Holy Fathers rashly and/or uncritically in a way that either directly or indirectly undermines respected hierarchs, and with the consequence of in turn sowing seeds of dissension—particularly at such a volatile and precarious time as now. Such a rash and uncritical use of the Fathers tends to be characterised by, amongst other things, undue emphasis on superficial matters of disagreement, whilst ignoring the underlying areas of substantial agreement on essential matters.

As I'm sure you know, the Holy Fathers rarely shared a perfect consensus on all matters, and, in any event, the substantial authority of their consensus applies to essential matters of doctrine and spirituality--which is why a significant portion of my first response in this thread was focused on stressing the fact that, as far as concerns all essential matters of doctrine and spirituality relating to the question of whether or not Judas had partaken of the Eucharist, His Holiness was in agreement with the Fathers.

I accept that you never intended to undermine His Holiness, and that you love him and appreciate all his works. I also accept that His Holiness, notwithstanding his spiritual and theological integrity, is fallible and like any man can err—as I explicitly conceded, I'm personally of the view that Judas did partake of the Eucharist—it seems to have wider patristic support, was (and should resume to be) expressed in our Liurgical texts, and is, I believe, the better account of the Scriptural text.

With that said, my response was prompted by a spirit of caution on account of the perceived implications of your post and not in a spirit of offence provoked by a negative assumption as to your actual intentions. Peace.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 02:20:48 AM by EkhristosAnesti »

Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

If the apostolic constitutions claim inarguably that Judas was NOT present at the eucharist:

"And when He had delivered to us the representative mysteries of His precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us, He went out to the Mount of Olives, near the brook Cedron, where there was a garden"

Then why are we debating this? The apostolic constitutions take precedence any day over the writings of any church father..

If the apostolic constitutions claim inarguably that Judas was NOT present at the eucharist:

"And when He had delivered to us the representative mysteries of His precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us, He went out to the Mount of Olives, near the brook Cedron, where there was a garden"

Then why are we debating this? The apostolic constitutions take precedence any day over the writings of any church father..

I can definitely see your point. My main gripe with this whole situation is Met. Bishoy's intolerance of other perfectly acceptable and Patristically sound theories regarding this NON-DOGMATIC issue.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I dont believe so. I think they are quite late though composed of various documents.

Ah... Never mind then.

I guess the point here is that both theories regarding Judas' participation (or lack thereof) in the Eucharist is Patristically sound and that we should not favor one theory and completely exclude the other.

« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 11:31:12 AM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

The AS dates to the late 4th century. It contains other elements such as the Syrian Didaskalia and the Didache. It can't be considered a work of the Apostles. It is an early witness to the life and practice if the Church.

The AS dates to the late 4th century. It contains other elements such as the Syrian Didaskalia and the Didache. It can't be considered a work of the Apostles. It is an early witness to the life and practice if the Church.

Thank you for the info, Father.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

I read somewhere that the author of the Apostolic Constitutions was a (semi-)arian bishop who hated monasticism. I could be mistaken, of course.

« Last Edit: November 03, 2012, 11:45:02 AM by Cyrillic »

Logged

"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

The Tur Abdin Timeline - A timeline of Tur Abdin (Syriac for "the Mountain of the Servants [of God]"), the heartland of the Syriac Orthodox Christians, a hilly region located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and Euphrates.

All who hate me whisper together against me; Against me they devise my hurt. 8 “An evil disease,” they say, “clings to him. And now that he lies down, he will rise up no more.” 9 Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. [/u]

All who hate me whisper together against me; Against me they devise my hurt. 8 “An evil disease,” they say, “clings to him. And now that he lies down, he will rise up no more.” 9 Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. [/u]

All who hate me whisper together against me; Against me they devise my hurt. 8 “An evil disease,” they say, “clings to him. And now that he lies down, he will rise up no more.” 9 Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me. [/u]

It's quoted in one of the gospels in reference to Judas.

I just read that Scripture today in St. John's Gospel.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

In Book of John , Jesus said that those who eat His meat and drink His blood would be alive forever. If a person forsake God after he/she partake the Holy Communion, can he/she still save in Final Judgment ?Why?

In Book of John , Jesus said that those who eat His meat and drink His blood would be alive forever. If a person forsake God after he/she partake the Holy Communion, can he/she still save in Final Judgment ?Why?

Yes. And, if Christ the great High Priest, gave the Eucharist to Judas even though He knew Judas' grievous sinfulness, why do our humanly limited priests guard the Chalice from those who are in grievous sin? Christ would have guarded the Chalice like any good priest.

In Book of John , Jesus said that those who eat His meat and drink His blood would be alive forever. If a person forsake God after he/she partake the Holy Communion, can he/she still save in Final Judgment ?Why?

Yes. And, if Christ the great High Priest, gave the Eucharist to Judas even though He knew Judas' grievous sinfulness, why do our humanly limited priests guard the Chalice from those who are in grievous sin? Christ would have guarded the Chalice like any good priest.

Do all Orthodox Chritians agree with it?

It seems like 'sinner's prayer' in Protestant. Many Protestant Christians believe that after they pray to Jesus and ask God to give them the eternal life, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.(Because God listen our prayers)

Orthodox Christians believe that after they partake the holy communion, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.

Then, What is the difference between Orthodox and Protestant Christian?

In Book of John , Jesus said that those who eat His meat and drink His blood would be alive forever. If a person forsake God after he/she partake the Holy Communion, can he/she still save in Final Judgment ?Why?

Yes. And, if Christ the great High Priest, gave the Eucharist to Judas even though He knew Judas' grievous sinfulness, why do our humanly limited priests guard the Chalice from those who are in grievous sin? Christ would have guarded the Chalice like any good priest.

Do all Orthodox Chritians agree with it?

It seems like 'sinner's prayer' in Protestant. Many Protestant Christians believe that after they pray to Jesus and ask God to give them the eternal life, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.(Because God listen our prayers)

Orthodox Christians believe that after they partake the holy communion, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.

Then, What is the difference between Orthodox and Protestant Christian?

I believe that you have misunderstood me.

A priest does not give Communion to an non-repentant sinner. If the priest knows that a man is living in sin and has not repented and received absolution, the priest will deny him Communion.

We are all sinners, however, there is a difference between repentant sinners, and non-repentant sinners.

Christ, knowing that Judas was living in sin, would not have permitted Judas to eat and drink His Body and Blood.

In Book of John , Jesus said that those who eat His meat and drink His blood would be alive forever. If a person forsake God after he/she partake the Holy Communion, can he/she still save in Final Judgment ?Why?

Yes. And, if Christ the great High Priest, gave the Eucharist to Judas even though He knew Judas' grievous sinfulness, why do our humanly limited priests guard the Chalice from those who are in grievous sin? Christ would have guarded the Chalice like any good priest.

Do all Orthodox Chritians agree with it?

It seems like 'sinner's prayer' in Protestant. Many Protestant Christians believe that after they pray to Jesus and ask God to give them the eternal life, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.(Because God listen our prayers)

Orthodox Christians believe that after they partake the holy communion, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.

Then, What is the difference between Orthodox and Protestant Christian?

I believe that you have misunderstood me.

A priest does not give Communion to an non-repentant sinner. If the priest knows that a man is living in sin and has not repented and received absolution, the priest will deny him Communion.

We are all sinners, however, there is a difference between repentant sinners, and non-repentant sinners.

Christ, knowing that Judas was living in sin, would not have permitted Judas to eat and drink His Body and Blood.

Be a repentant sinner not a non-repentant sinner.

Assume that the priest allow a repentant sinner to partake the holy communion. That repentant sinner also partake the holy communion. However,he turns away from Orthodox faith /God and choose to live in sin again later.

If these Icons portray a continuation from the ancient copies, Judas wasn't present to partake of the Eucharist. He is seen walking out as Christ blesses the Bread and Wine.

Note: Judas is in the far left in the third Icon.

I don't think it necessarily contradicts the story that Judas partook of the Eucharist. Icons give us a theological/symbolic concept of a story, not necessarily something in its exact storyline. We crown the Theotokos sometimes as a queen on a throne with her son, the baby Christ, also crowned, and giving the blessing. Can we say that this occurred literally, or does this convey to us a theological teaching?

Judas leaving with the money bag, has darker colors attributed to him, losing the light of Christ, and is depicted on the left side, leaving or looking away from the Eucharist, "to the West" so to speak, as someone who is on the condemned side and forgotten. Whereas all others who partook of the Eucharist are filled with light, with eyes of prayer and contemplation, with holiness and worthiness, whereas the one person who partook of the Eucharist partook of his own condemnation, hence his dark complexion and left-sidedness.

« Last Edit: November 11, 2012, 08:33:59 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

In Book of John , Jesus said that those who eat His meat and drink His blood would be alive forever. If a person forsake God after he/she partake the Holy Communion, can he/she still save in Final Judgment ?Why?

Yes. And, if Christ the great High Priest, gave the Eucharist to Judas even though He knew Judas' grievous sinfulness, why do our humanly limited priests guard the Chalice from those who are in grievous sin? Christ would have guarded the Chalice like any good priest.

Do all Orthodox Chritians agree with it?

It seems like 'sinner's prayer' in Protestant. Many Protestant Christians believe that after they pray to Jesus and ask God to give them the eternal life, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.(Because God listen our prayers)

Orthodox Christians believe that after they partake the holy communion, they can save forever. Even they foresake God,they can still save.

Then, What is the difference between Orthodox and Protestant Christian?

I believe that you have misunderstood me.

A priest does not give Communion to an non-repentant sinner. If the priest knows that a man is living in sin and has not repented and received absolution, the priest will deny him Communion.

We are all sinners, however, there is a difference between repentant sinners, and non-repentant sinners.

Christ, knowing that Judas was living in sin, would not have permitted Judas to eat and drink His Body and Blood.

Be a repentant sinner not a non-repentant sinner.

A man repents and so the priest allow him to takes the holy communion. That man also takes the holy communion. However, that man turns away from Orthodox /God and choose to live in sin later.

In this case, can that still save in the final judgment?

We're going a bit off topic here... One must die in a state of grace. The Eucharist is the medicine of immortality. However, like all medicines, it must be received properly. If you partake of the Eucharist unworthily, it be unto your condemnation. If you have prepared your heart (confessed your sins, etc), it shall help you to better stand against temptation.

King Manasseh started out as the most wicked king that Judah ever had. However, King Manasseh repented of his sins and turned to the Lord.

King Asa started out as a righteous king of Judah. However, King Asa turned away from the Lord at the end of his life. He put the prophet of God in a prison house and oppressed some of the people the same time.

If these Icons portray a continuation from the ancient copies, Judas wasn't present to partake of the Eucharist. He is seen walking out as Christ blesses the Bread and Wine.

Note: Judas is in the far left in the third Icon.

I don't think it necessarily contradicts the story that Judas partook of the Eucharist. Icons give us a theological/symbolic concept of a story, not necessarily something in its exact storyline. We crown the Theotokos sometimes as a queen on a throne with her son, the baby Christ, also crowned, and giving the blessing. Can we say that this occurred literally, or does this convey to us a theological teaching?

Judas leaving with the money bag, has darker colors attributed to him, losing the light of Christ, and is depicted on the left side, leaving or looking away from the Eucharist, "to the West" so to speak, as someone who is on the condemned side and forgotten. Whereas all others who partook of the Eucharist are filled with light, with eyes of prayer and contemplation, with holiness and worthiness, whereas the one person who partook of the Eucharist partook of his own condemnation, hence his dark complexion and left-sidedness.

You have a valid point, but why would Christ have an "open-Communion" if tradition tells us that Communion is only for repentant believers? If a priest is supposed to guard the Chalice, why wouldn't Christ do the same?